Page 496 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Opposition members interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: I think the minister sat down because of the level of interjection. Minister, you have time to continue.
Mr Hanson: He’s not very robust.
MADAM SPEAKER: That is not the point. Standing orders say that the minister should be heard in silence, as in no interjections. Minister.
MR GENTLEMAN: As I have said, we have invested heavily in ACT Policing, and they have responded. They are doing their very best to address crime in the territory, including robberies. As I have said, they are doing a fantastic job.
MR PARTON: Minister, for how much longer does the ACT government expect our police officers to do more and more work with fewer resources?
MR GENTLEMAN: I thank Mr Parton for his question but his inference is incorrect. We are providing more resources for ACT police. You have heard the numbers in recent answers, Madam Speaker: $6.4 million extra for Taskforce Nemesis, including extra funding for the beat squad on the ground—investment in our crime task force. And of course those investments are showing results. I have every confidence in ACT police and I certainly wish the opposition did too.
Citizens juries—impartiality
MS LEE: My question is to the Treasurer. In Associate Professor Dr Ron Levy’s independent report on the ACT citizens jury pilot he identified that “bias was evident in the official rhetoric surrounding the proceedings” and that “this framing undermined the objective of using the citizens jury to depoliticise contentious questions of reform”. Treasurer, why did the government make political statements and frame information in a way that could undermine the impartiality and autonomy of the jurors?
MR BARR: We have not and if anyone is politicising this, it is the opposition.
Members interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, please! Ms Lee with a supplementary.
MS LEE: Treasurer, what was the process to ensure that public statements and information were not biased or politicised and, if there was not a process, why was it not considered necessary?
MR BARR: The process was according to the principles outlined in the procurement of this particular citizens jury and the government’s broader principles around community engagement. I know why you are politicising this and anyone, any
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video